3 ms·

semi-conspiracy theory: the main goal of this rewriting is to have less and less infrastructure depending on GPL and AGPL-licensed code

jsty 6y ago
If all Google wanted was GPL- and AGPL-free code, they're quite capable of assigning their own engineers / contractors to work on it rather than the more tortuous route of going via a 3rd party
- bluGill 6y ago
  Their accountants probably prefer this route though. They don't get a competitive advantage by have a proprietary license, so open source is a good choice, but the GPL has issues they want to avoid. By going this route they can use tax breaks that are not available for doing the work in house. Sure it is more complex, but the results matter, and the result they are hoping for is someone else does work that they don't pay for.
  - konschubert 6y ago
    Also it's probably cheaper to fund an OS developer for a year than paying for lunch alone for their own engineers.
  - jononor 6y ago
    What kinds of tax breaks are available for the case of using consultants instead of employees?
    - bluGill 6y ago
      It isn't consultants it is 501 charities doing the work. The charity hires the consultants. There are a lot of tricks needed to make the above work, and details that you need to consult a lawyer and accountant for.
- enriquto 6y ago
  > they're quite capable of assigning their own engineers but if they develop it for internal usage only, then they don't get the added benefit of destroying the existing copylefted version!
userbinator 6y ago
My semi-conspiracy theory: "safe" languages also make it harder for things like jailbreaks and other defeats of user-hostile "protections", allowing Big Tech to maintain control, so making them popular is very much in their interest. It's like how every utopian vision for society turns into a dystopian one. "Insecurity is freedom."
kam 6y ago
Apache and Curl are not GPL or AGPL to start with.
- enriquto 6y ago
  Of course any such endeavor must have a patina of plausible deniability. That's evildoing 101 :)
- corebuffer 6y ago
  Sure, but what if the person/team willing to rewrite wants to do so under GPL? Or what happens next when the next project to be rewritten is GPL? I think its fair to keep the original license, but if re-licensing is allowed it should be permissive.
corebuffer 6y ago
They removed licensing from their FAQ, but I was able to find this issue: https://github.com/ossf/tac/issues/26 https://github.com/ossf/tac/issues/26 I'm also curious if they will accept GPL or not
rcxdude 6y ago
It will take quite a lot more effort to rewrite something so that the (A)GPL doesn't stick. To do that you would need to rebuild it from its documentation and/or a clean-room reverse engineering, as opposed to a port of the source code.

jsty 6y ago

If all Google wanted was GPL- and AGPL-free code, they're quite capable of assigning their own engineers / contractors to work on it rather than the more tortuous route of going via a 3rd party

bluGill 6y ago
Their accountants probably prefer this route though. They don't get a competitive advantage by have a proprietary license, so open source is a good choice, but the GPL has issues they want to avoid. By going this route they can use tax breaks that are not available for doing the work in house. Sure it is more complex, but the results matter, and the result they are hoping for is someone else does work that they don't pay for.
- konschubert 6y ago
  Also it's probably cheaper to fund an OS developer for a year than paying for lunch alone for their own engineers.
- jononor 6y ago
  What kinds of tax breaks are available for the case of using consultants instead of employees?
  - bluGill 6y ago
    It isn't consultants it is 501 charities doing the work. The charity hires the consultants. There are a lot of tricks needed to make the above work, and details that you need to consult a lawyer and accountant for.
enriquto 6y ago
> they're quite capable of assigning their own engineers but if they develop it for internal usage only, then they don't get the added benefit of destroying the existing copylefted version!

userbinator 6y ago

My semi-conspiracy theory: "safe" languages also make it harder for things like jailbreaks and other defeats of user-hostile "protections", allowing Big Tech to maintain control, so making them popular is very much in their interest. It's like how every utopian vision for society turns into a dystopian one. "Insecurity is freedom."

kam 6y ago

Apache and Curl are not GPL or AGPL to start with.

enriquto 6y ago
Of course any such endeavor must have a patina of plausible deniability. That's evildoing 101 :)
corebuffer 6y ago
Sure, but what if the person/team willing to rewrite wants to do so under GPL? Or what happens next when the next project to be rewritten is GPL? I think its fair to keep the original license, but if re-licensing is allowed it should be permissive.

corebuffer 6y ago

They removed licensing from their FAQ, but I was able to find this issue: https://github.com/ossf/tac/issues/26 https://github.com/ossf/tac/issues/26 I'm also curious if they will accept GPL or not

rcxdude 6y ago

It will take quite a lot more effort to rewrite something so that the (A)GPL doesn't stick. To do that you would need to rebuild it from its documentation and/or a clean-room reverse engineering, as opposed to a port of the source code.